Is The Death Penalty A Deterrent?

[Wino]

Here is a story about the cost to a state in the US having the death penalty. I am surprised that it cost so much. I am also surprised at the results of the poll of 500 police chiefs. Is the state sanction killing of a human being really something that brings down the murder rate? Does the eye for an eye philosophy deter crime, or does it just make the people feel better?

By Lucile Malandain – Tue Oct 20, 2009 WASHINGTON (AFP) – Even when executions are not carried out, the death penalty costs US states hundreds of millions of dollars a year, depleting budgets in the midst of economic crisis, a study released Tuesday found.

"It is doubtful in today's economic climate that any legislature would introduce the death penalty if faced with the reality that each execution would cost taxpayers 25 million dollars, or that the state might spend more than 100 million dollars over several years and produce few or no executions," argued Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center and the report's author.

"Surely there are more pressing needs deserving funding," he wrote, noting that execution was rated among the least effective crime deterrents.

In just one death penalty trial "the state may pay one million dollars more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is three million dollars," the study's author said.

"Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is 30 million dollars," Dieter added in the report entitled "Smart on Crime."

The center's goal of ending executions may still be an uphill battle.

The report comes just a week after a new poll found that 65 percent of Americans still favor the death penalty.

Legal in 35 of the 50 US states and used regularly in about 12 or so, the death penalty has been reconsidered recently in 11 states, largely because of the high costs associated with its use.

Colorado came close to eliminating execution but New Mexico was the only state to abolish it, in March.

"There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wasteful, expensive programs that no longer make sense," Dieter stressed, noting that most US states that pay to maintain a system to execute inmates have in the past three decades put to death only a handful of convicted criminals.

"The same states that are spending millions of dollars on the death penalty are facing severe cutbacks in other justice areas. Courts are open less, trials are delayed, and even police are being furloughed," Dieter said.

In Pennsylvania, 200 police posts sit unfilled, and in New Hampshire trials were put on hold for a month to save money.

Dieter says that keeping execution while reducing its costs is not realistic. If less money is spent on appeals, he argues, the risk of executing an innocent person will increase.

He said that ultimately, execution does not deter crime as its supporters hope. Capital punishment has been abolished in most western democracies, and after it was eliminated in the US state of New Jersey in 2007, the state saw its murder rate decline.

Dieter cites a poll of 500 local police chiefs, which was paid for by the DPIC and released on Tuesday, showing support for ending capital punishment.

The survey found that the police chiefs see the death penalty as the least effective tool in deterring crime. They suggest more efficient use of resources -- such as boosting funding for drug and alcohol abuse programs.

http://news.yahoo.co...xecutionjustice

[WannaGo]

The death penalty sure deters the hell out of the killer who's executed. And I have no problem with the concept that if you take an innocent life, you must forfeit yours.

The problem is that the system is rife with mistakes that send the wrong people to death row, as we see every day in the work done by the outstanding Innocence Project. Even when they get the right person, the death penalty is applied so inconsistently as to be patently unjust.

[lvdkeyes]

The cost rises because the executions are not expedient. When there is no doubt about guilt, as in John Gacy for example, why delay? Why did it take them 14 years to execute him?

[Wino]

Why did it take them 14 years to execute him?

It is because of appeals and lawyer.

[Wino]

The death penalty sure deters the hell out of the killer who's executed. And I have no problem with the concept that if you take an innocent life, you must forfeit yours.

I think in some middle eastern countries (Iran?), they chop off your hand if you are a thief. That sounds like a deterrent, too.

[lvdkeyes]

I understand about appeals, etc. My question is why were they allowed when it was absolutely certain that he committed the crimes. I know it is the judicial system. The question is: why? There should be an expedient way of getting rid of these types to save the costs involved.

[Wino]

I understand about appeals, etc. My question is why they were allowed when it was absolutely certain that he committed the crimes. I know it is the judicial system. The question is: why? There should be an expedient way of getting rid of these types to save the costs involved.

I think it is something about "due process" under the law. I guess this is the way the system is set up. Since this is a life and death situation, I think they want to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. As WannaGo said, "the system is rife with mistakes that send the wrong people to death row, as we see every day in the work done by the outstanding Innocence Project"

Why not let the low life rot in prison for a while? Maybe be gang-raped? Maybe even be killed by a fellow inmate? Isn't that humane?

[lvdkeyes]

At a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars? Again, I will say, when there is absolute certainty of guilt, there needs to be a mechanism to expedite the process.

[Wino]

At a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars? Again, I will say, when there is absolute certainty of guilt, there needs to be a mechanism to expedite the process.

Oh, like a confession. Maybe we would then have government-assisted suicide? That's an idea!

[lvdkeyes]

NO, not like a confession. In the case I stated (Gacy) there was irrefutable evidence. Manson family, Dahmer and a host of others.

[Bob]

Given the strong opposition to the death penalty by a lot of people (most states in the US don't allow it), the appeals process is long and dragged out on the theory that it's better to be extremely careful in these cases than mistaken. Even with that, it's likely that at least a few people have been hung/fried/poisoned by the state that were not liable for the crime charged.

The existence of a confession doesn't mean the guy did it but it's surely helpful where there is independent evidence to support the conviction. Eyewitness testimony also helps at times but is notoriously questionable (recollections from many memories are rather selective and faulty and we're too often susceptible to intentional or unintentional plantings that become "fact" to us).

Personally, I see no point in having the death penalty. Regardless of one's moral point of view (I think eye-for-an-eye is dark ages stuff), there's no valid evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterent and it's significantly cheaper to just keep them in prison than to go through the cost of all of the appeals processes.

Yea, some people deserve capital punishment.....but those who would administer such punishment ought to have a little more advanced thinking processes going on than to play that game (just my opinion).

[Wino]

The article states, "Legal in 35 of the 50 US states and used regularly in about 12 or so" with, I believe Texas and Florida leading the pack in executions. Even though "a new poll found that 65 percent of Americans still favor the death penalty," I would be in favor abolishing the death penalty. If these litigation costs are correct, I do not see the advantage of the death penalty. Like most Western countries have realized, life in prison is punishment enough. Although I am no expert, I do not believe there are many studies out there that find the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

[rucus7]

Although I am no expert,

It may not be a deterrent, it may not be about an eye for an eye. It may not be about punishment of any kind. It may be about ridding society of the rabid element it has produced.

[lvdkeyes]

The deterrent is that that individual will never kill again. IMHO, people like Gacy, Dahmer, & Manson to name a few are better off dead and society is better off without them.

[Beer Chang]

I don't see what the big deal is about the death penalty.

I'd rather be dead than spend my life in some horrific prison.

Use painless annestesia and quite humane IMHO..

[Wino]

The deterrent is that that individual will never kill again.

Life in prison without parole will keep the individual from killing again. The exception would be a low-life cell mate and does that really count?

[WannaGo]

The deterrent is that that individual will never kill again. IMHO, people like Gacy, Dahmer, & Manson to name a few are better off dead and society is better off without them.

I agree with that 100%. That's why I would support the death penalty if we could ever get a reliable and equitable system figured out. But until then, I side with those who want a moratorium imposed.

I'll never forget this case from several years ago.

Kid and his buddy arranged a drug deal for the purpose of ripping off two dealers. Only, the dealers also planned to rip them off. They showed up, nobody had any dope or any cash. They pulled out guns and started shooting. The buddy and one of the dealers ended up dead.

Evidence couldn't show who started shooting first, only that all four had been shooting. But the live dealer struck a deal to testify against the kid, say he'd been the first to shoot.

The kid got charged with capital murder, convicted and sentenced to death. The whole thing took less than a week.

When it was over, I asked the prosecutor why he pushed for the death penalty on this, of all cases, when it wasn't clear the kid had acted with premeditation or intent. He said, "Murder offends me."

Any other county, any other prosecutor, any other time, that kid would have gotten 2nd degree and pulled 25, maybe life. It just happened to be his bad luck that this particular prosecutor got the case.

Not too long after that, another guy went to trial in that same courthouse (with a different prosecutor) for a shooting over drugs outside a nightclub. He got life. So did another guy who broke into a woman's home and strangled her because she resisted his attempts at rape.

There's just no rhyme or reason to who gets the death sentence and who doesn't.

[rucus7]

There's just no rhyme or reason to who gets the death sentence and who doesn't.

Hence, the appeal process

[Wino]

The cost rises because the executions are not expedient. When there is no doubt about guilt, as in John Gacy for example, why delay? Why did it take them 14 years to execute him?

And who determines "there is no doubt about guilt?" The appellate court system is burdened with this task. That is how our justice system is set-up. I wish it were quicker and less expensive but under our system, the wheels of justice move slowly. I think it is a pretty good system and much better than the quick executions that happened under Stalin, Castro and the Iranian courts.

[Thaimo]

I am not a great fan of the death penalty. My feelings are mixed. Certainly there are many who deserve it, but which is worse, dying or life in prison? It is not a choice I would ever want to have to make. I agree that there should be an appeals process, but I don't know why it takes ten, fifteen, or even twenty years. I also do not see the justification for the cost of it all. I remember reading something about the Nazis and their attempts to sterilize the Jews before they began the mass death camps. Heydrich was quoted as saying, "Death is the most effective means of sterilization" By that kind of convoluted logic, the death penalty is the most effective deterrent to further crime by the individuals who committed those crimes. I believe it may have been Goering who said, "Kill one and you have a murder. Kill millions and you have a statistic." It's sheer madness.

I think the main reason the death penalty fails as a deterrent is because of the length of time that passes before the actual execution takes place. I also think it fails as a deterrent because a person committing a capital crime is probably not even thinking about the consequences.

Some people say the death penalty is only revenge. I don't see anything wrong with revenge. If someone close to me was murdered, I would want the revenge. If I myself am ever murdered, I would want the person who did it to pay heavily for the crime. I wouldn't be around to see it, but I would still want the revenge.

[Wino]

I am not sure if capital punishment deters murder or not. If I had to guess, I would say probably not. I have always heard that most murders are unplanned or more impulsive, usually between individuals that know each other. With all the drug gangs and drive-by shootings, that premise might not hold true anymore. I don’t know.

There have been many studies to determine whether capital punishment deters crime. The proponents always site the study in the mid-1970, where they concluded that execution deterred about 7 or 8 murders. I do not think anyone was able to replicate the outcome of that study. Seems the overwhelming studies tend to be inconclusive or say capital punishment is not a deterrent.

If the states are forced to spend millions of dollars on keeping the death penalty, I would think those millions would be better spent for more policemen and law enforcement work.

[Bob]

If the states are forced to spend millions of dollars on keeping the death penalty, I would think those millions would be better spent for more policemen and law enforcement work.

I'd vote to use those dollars to go ask the fifth grade teachers to identify the screwed-up kids in their classrooms - and then have some intervention (psychological, family assistance, etc.) that'll help the kid not become a juvenile offender (and, later, an adult offender) in the first place. Intervention much after the age of 10-12 is pretty much a lost cause.

[Thaimo]

I'd vote to use those dollars to go ask the fifth grade teachers to identify the screwed-up kids in their classrooms - and then have some intervention

I have two problems with that. The first would be to wonder if the teachers would be able to find any fifth graders who aren't already screwed up. The second would be to question about the intervention. It seems to me that ever since about the early 1960s any time people start 'intervening' with school kids the whole system gets steadily worse and the ones doing the intervening leave behind kids who are more screwed up than they already were.

[Bob]

I have two problems with that. The first would be to wonder if the teachers would be able to find any fifth graders who aren't already screwed up. The second would be to question about the intervention. It seems to me that ever since about the early 1960s any time people start 'intervening' with school kids the whole system gets steadily worse and the ones doing the intervening leave behind kids who are more screwed up than they already were.

I can understand your reservations....but the alternative is to do nothing and watch the prison population increase (3 or 4 years ago, the US overtook Russia as being the #1 modern country with the highest percentage of its adult population in prison). By the way, most 5th graders are perfectly fine.

[WannaGo]

If I had to guess, I would say probably not. I have always heard that most murders are unplanned or more impulsive, usually between individuals that know each other.

One of the primary characteristics of any person who engages in frequent criminal behavior is low impulse control. For that reason, I have serious doubts about the deterrent effect of the death penalty on anyone other than the person executed.

I'd vote to use those dollars to go ask the fifth grade teachers to identify the screwed-up kids in their classrooms - and then have some intervention...

I think a significant number of future offenders are going to offend regardless of intervention.

Some people say the death penalty is only revenge. I don't see anything wrong with revenge. If someone close to me was murdered, I would want the revenge. If I myself am ever murdered, I would want the person who did it to pay heavily for the crime. I wouldn't be around to see it, but I would still want the revenge.

You're right, vengeance certainly has its place.